From: Ohio Environmental Law Blog
I was interviewed for a story on the local NPR station in
Cleveland about a Northeast Ohio company that nearly went
bankrupt because of confusion over Ohio's brownfield tax abatement
law. The title of the story was "How a Poorly Worded
Tax Rule Nearly Bankrupted Ohio's Oldest Company." Listen to
the whole story by clicking here. After reviewing the issue in
preparation for the interview, it became readily apparent this was
a law in serious need of a re-write. A company's future
shouldn't hinge on a vague tax exemption law. I also learned
that it was probably time to revisit some of the policy decisions
made when writing the brownfield tax exemption law. Background:
Taylor Companies was debating whether to move out of Ohio. It
decided to remain in...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Important Ohio EPA Updates on Brownfield Redevelopment
Recently, Ohio EPA released its newsletter directed toward those
interested in brownfield redevelopment (SABR News). The July
2010 newsletter included some important recent developments at the
federal and state level. Federal Brownfields Legislation The
Federal Brownfield Re-authorization Bill was introduced in May
2010. If the bill passes it could include some important
reforms to U.S. EPA's brownfield programs, including: Increased
funding- From $350 million in 2011 up to $600 million in FFY
2016. While an increase in funding helps spur brownfield
redevelopment, one has to question whether such an increase is at
all likely given the state of the federal deficit. Increase in the
cap on federal grants- Move from $200,000 to $750,000. This
is obvious ...
Important Ohio EPA Updates on Brownfield Redevelopment
Recently, Ohio EPA released its newsletter directed toward those
interested in brownfield redevelopment (SABR News). The July
2010 newsletter included some important recent developments at the
federal and state level. Federal Brownfields Legislation The
Federal Brownfield Re-authorization Bill was introduced in May
2010. If the bill passes it could include some important
reforms to U.S. EPA's brownfield programs, including: Increased
funding- From $350 million in 2011 up to $600 million in FFY
2016. While an increase in funding helps spur brownfield
redevelopment, one has to question whether such an increase is at
all likely given the state of the federal deficit. Increase in the
cap on federal grants- Move from $200,000 to $750,000. This
is obvious ...
U.S. EPA Solicits Proposals for Brownfield Assessment and Clean Up Grants
U.S. EPA has released its fiscal year 2011 request for proposals
(RFP) for brownfield assessment and clean up grants.
There is a relatively short window of opportunity to file your
application- the deadline is October 15, 2010. [Click here
for access to U.S. EPA's RFP for the brownfield assessment, clean
up and revolving loan] There is a total of $92.9 million
available. While the RFP allows for greater funding
under certain circumstances, the basic limit is $200,000 per site
for assessment or clean up. EPA is required to expend
25% of the total amount available for sites contaminated with
petroleum. Ohio is lucky to have one of the best state
brownfield grant programs- Clean Ohio. Often Clean Ohio
is a better option than pursuing t...
Addressing the State Liability Gap in the Federal "Innocent Landowner Defense"
.jpg)
Liability for pre-existing contamination acts as a strong deterrent
to re-use of brownfield properties. Prospective purchasers
simply do not want to expose themselves to potential liability
especially when they had nothing to do with the contamination.
At the federal level, there has been an attempt to address
liability exposure in order to provide prospective purchasers some
level of liability protection. However, even though tools
exist at the federal level, potential exposure to state
environmental liabilities can act as its own deterrent.
While the Clean Ohio may be one of the best b...
Addressing the State Liability Gap in the Federal "Innocent Landowner Defense"
Liability for pre-existing contamination acts as a strong deterrent
to re-use of brownfield properties. Prospective purchasers
simply do not want to expose themselves to potential liability
especially when they had nothing to do with the contamination.
At the federal level, there has been an attempt to address
liability exposure in order to provide prospective purchasers some
level of liability protection. However, even though tools
exist at the federal level, potential exposure to state
environmental liabilities can act as its own deterrent.
While the Clean Ohio may be one of the best b...